Sheldon's "century special" (13-30): As good as the 12-27 Ultegra?
scott
rear derailleur for a double crankset (RD-5500-SS) and the Shimano 105
front derailleur (FD-5500) with 39 and 48 front chainrings. It shifts
great, but I want a slightly easier low gear.
Question:
The stated max sprocket for my 105 derailleur is 27T. The 30 on the
modified Ultegra Century Special (13 14 15 17 19 21 24 27 30) is
obviously out of spec. Will Sheldon's 13-30 shift *just as well* (not
almost as well) with my setup? I have googled several responses that say
it will work, but I only want to do it if there will be no degradation
of shifting performance.
Assume I am able to avoid cross chain combinations like 30 rear, 48 front.
Thanks in advance for any info, but first hand info will be especially
appreciated.
Paul Southworth
I don't think it will shift "just as well" but I think the performance
should be "pretty darn good" due to the small difference between
chainrings. If you really want it to be perfect just add a long
cage derailleur.
B a r r y B u r k e J r .
Ditto that. Using a long cage (triple) rear der on a double front
chainring setup will take up the extra chain needed for a wide range
cassette. Even a good mountain bike rear der will work well. The
shop I work for has outfitted many a road bike with an XT or XTR rear
der for hill climbers.
Barry
Steve Palincsar
> I presently use an Ultegra 12-27 cassette (CS-6500) with a Shimano 105
> rear derailleur for a double crankset (RD-5500-SS) and the Shimano 105
> front derailleur (FD-5500) with 39 and 48 front chainrings. It shifts
> great, but I want a slightly easier low gear. Question: The stated max
> sprocket for my 105 derailleur is 27T. The 30 on the modified Ultegra
> Century Special (13 14 15 17 19 21 24 27 30) is obviously out of spec.
> Will Sheldon's 13-30 shift *just as well* (not almost as well) with my
> setup? I have googled several responses that say it will work, but I
> only want to do it if there will be no degradation of shifting
> performance.
I'm using that splendid cassette on two bikes, but I'm using it with long
cage Deore XT rear mechs. I didn't see much point in pushing the capacity
of the rear, and I was building both frames up from scratch.
Sheldon Brown
"Just as well (not almost as well)?" Are you implying that stock
Ultegra shifting is just barely acceptable? If so, you must be
extraordinarily fussy, or your bike must be poorly maintained/adjusted.
Eddy Merckx, Miguel Indurain and Greg Lemond never raced on anything
that shifts as well as current Ultegra.
To answer your question, The shift from the 13 to the 14 and the shift
from the 27 to the 30 are not "correct" Hyperglide shifts. As a result,
these shifts will make a tiny bit more noise and perhaps even take a few
milliseconds longer. The other shifts are the same as with the stock
12-27 that is the basis of the custom cassette.
I've sold lots and lots of these, and never had any complaints of poor
shifting.
Sheldon "Like Mahgarine" Brown
+-----------------------------------------+
| I have the simplest tastes. |
| I am always satisfied with the best. |
| --Oscar Wilde |
+-----------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772, 617-244-1040 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
Grenouil
in message
news:JUzz9.26717$A%3.34...@ord-read.news.verio.net...
Folks - the question was whether exceeding the Shimano
"largest sprocket" spec of 27T would be a problem - not
dérailleur capacity. The setup mentioned has a capacity
requirement of (48-39) + (30-13) = 26T, and a current
Ultegra double has a stated maximum capacity of 29T - so
capacity shouldn't be an issue which requires a switch to a
long cage? Even a long cage Ultegra has a maximum sprocket
spec of 27T.
scott
> scott wrote:
>
>> I presently use an Ultegra 12-27 cassette (CS-6500) with a Shimano 105
>> rear derailleur for a double crankset (RD-5500-SS) and the Shimano 105
>> front derailleur (FD-5500) with 39 and 48 front chainrings. It shifts
>> great, but I want a slightly easier low gear.
>> Question:
>> The stated max sprocket for my 105 derailleur is 27T. The 30 on the
>> modified Ultegra Century Special (13 14 15 17 19 21 24 27 30) is
>> obviously out of spec. Will Sheldon's 13-30 shift *just as well* (not
>> almost as well) with my setup? I have googled several responses that
>> say it will work, but I only want to do it if there will be no
>> degradation of shifting performance.
>> Assume I am able to avoid cross chain combinations like 30 rear, 48
>> front.
>> Thanks in advance for any info, but first hand info will be especially
>> appreciated.
>
>
> "Just as well (not almost as well)?" Are you implying that stock
> Ultegra shifting is just barely acceptable?
No, I am not implying that. You must have missed my statement that my
current setup "shifts great". It is 3 sentences before the section you
quoted...
To restate:
-My current setup "shifts great".
-I asked if my proposed change in setup (12-27 swapped out for 13-30)
would result in a setup that shifts "just as well (not almost as well)".
-Just as well as great does not equal "just barely acceptable". It
equals great.
> If so, you must be
> extraordinarily fussy, or your bike must be poorly maintained/adjusted.
I'd say medium fussy. As far as maintenance / adjustment:
-This bike (2003 Kona Jake the Snake) is about 2 months old. I have
about 50 hours on it (one of 3 bikes in regular use).
-It is a cyclocross bike, but so far it has been used for training (I
race mountain bikes cross-country) primarily on the road which,
strangely enough, has been dry. This has been the driest fall ever
around here (Vancouver, B.C). Every 6 hours the chain gets White
Lightning Raceday. I wouldn't eat off the drivetrain, but it probably
wouldn't kill me either. The thing shifts, as I said before, great.
-I have managed to keep my 5-day-a-week commuter bike (1990 Bridgestone
MB1) running nicely since new with little outside help. That includes
the original 3 or four years of mountain biking on terrain that would
make your Massachusetts calibrated eyes bug out of their sockets. Think
Whistler, the North Shore, and best of all (even though you've probably
never heard of it), Squamish. Still have the Suntour XC pro derailleurs
on it (thumb shifters and friction front) but I swapped out the
Dia-compe brakes since they always were a pain to adjust.
> Eddy Merckx, Miguel Indurain and Greg Lemond never raced on anything
> that shifts as well as current Ultegra.
>
> To answer your question, The shift from the 13 to the 14 and the shift
> from the 27 to the 30 are not "correct" Hyperglide shifts. As a result,
> these shifts will make a tiny bit more noise and perhaps even take a few
> milliseconds longer. The other shifts are the same as with the stock
> 12-27 that is the basis of the custom cassette.
>
> I've sold lots and lots of these, and never had any complaints of poor
> shifting.
My concern was not about the quality of your cassette, but the fact that
it exceeds the max sprocket capacity of my derailleur by 3 teeth. Thanks
for the response. Great web site, by the way.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> it exceeds the max sprocket capacity of my derailleur by 3 teeth.
Sheldon can't guarantee shifting with your present rear derailleur because
that's not just a function of the derailleur, cogs and chainring combo, but
also has a lot to do with the dropout configuration. The relationship of
the axle to the derailleur mounting hole makes quite a difference in terms
of a derailleurs ability to climb up to and off of cogs at the extreme end
of its range. On some dropouts, you'll find the derailleur's upper wheel
rides right no top of the cog, and even shortening the chain won't cure it
(unless you shorten it so radically that you risk ripping the derailleur out
of the dropout on an accidental large/large combo).
Worst-case scenario is that you'll need to go to a longer-cage rear
derailleur. The discussion is almost academic, since, if you need that 30t,
what else are you going to do? Just try it and, if need be, go to the
longer derailleur. If you don't have to have a 30t, then stay where you are
and you'll have unquestionably great shifting with no compromise. In a
worst-case scenario, where you decide you have to go to a triple to get what
you want, the long-cage derailleur will most likely be required anyway.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"scott" <sma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3DCEF5D6...@hotmail.com...
Sheldon Brown
>>> Will Sheldon's 13-30 shift *just as well* (not
>>> almost as well) with my setup? I have googled several responses that
>>> say it will work, but I only want to do it if there will be no
>>> degradation of shifting performance.
>>> Assume I am able to avoid cross chain combinations like 30 rear, 48
>>> front.
I responded:
>> "Just as well (not almost as well)?" Are you implying that stock
>> Ultegra shifting is just barely acceptable?
> No, I am not implying that. You must have missed my statement that my
> current setup "shifts great". It is 3 sentences before the section you
> quoted...
It seemed to me that you were implying that if there was even an
eensy-weensy bit of degradation it would become unacceptable to you.
If that is the case, your present level of performance is, in fact,
"just barely acceptable" to you.
> My concern was not about the quality of your cassette, but the fact that
> it exceeds the max sprocket capacity of my derailleur by 3 teeth.
See: http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ca-m.html#capacity for the skinny on
this.
I've sold lots of these for use with standard "road double" canksets and
Shimano short-cage rear derailers. They work fine, but the chain may
droop if you accidentally shift into the small-small cross chain gears.
If memory serves, you have a closer than usual setup in front, so even
this shouldn't be an issue.
If you'd care to buy one and try it out, you may return it if it doesn't
work for you.
> Thanks for the response. Great web site, by the way.
Gladja likeit!
Sheldon "Perfection Doesn't Exist" Brown
+---------------------------------------------+
| People who like this sort of thing will |
| find this the sort of thing they like |
| --Abraham Lincoln |
+---------------------------------------------+
Qui si parla Campagnolo
>that shifts as well as current Ultegra.
I'll buy Merckx and even Lemond in the pre Exa-drive days but Miguel used
1995/6 Record which was exa-drive/ERGO and shifted as well as current ultegra.
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
Steve Palincsar
> To answer your question, The shift from the 13 to the 14 and the shift
> from the 27 to the 30 are not "correct" Hyperglide shifts. As a result,
> these shifts will make a tiny bit more noise and perhaps even take a few
> milliseconds longer. The other shifts are the same as with the stock
> 12-27 that is the basis of the custom cassette.
>
> I've sold lots and lots of these, and never had any complaints of poor
> shifting.
I own two of these Century Specials, and in my experience they shift as
well as any other cassette I've ever used. Indeed, I detect no difference
in the shift quality on the 13-14 and the 27-30 as compared to the rest of
the block. If there's a difference, it's down in the noise leven and
beyond my powers of detection.
John Everett
<capt...@sheldonbrown.com> wrote:
>To answer your question, The shift from the 13 to the 14 and the shift
>from the 27 to the 30 are not "correct" Hyperglide shifts. As a result,
>these shifts will make a tiny bit more noise and perhaps even take a few
>milliseconds longer. The other shifts are the same as with the stock
>12-27 that is the basis of the custom cassette.
>
>I've sold lots and lots of these, and never had any complaints of poor
>shifting.
I recently installed one of these (along with a Sheldon-built 48 spoke
wheel) on a friend's touring bike. The bike is Campy Record equipped
and it too shifts just fine.
jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
scott
> Scott asked:
>
>>>> Will Sheldon's 13-30 shift *just as well* (not almost as well) with
>>>> my setup? I have googled several responses that say it will work,
>>>> but I only want to do it if there will be no degradation of shifting
>>>> performance.
>>>> Assume I am able to avoid cross chain combinations like 30 rear, 48
>>>> front.
>>>
>
> I responded:
>
>>> "Just as well (not almost as well)?" Are you implying that stock
>>> Ultegra shifting is just barely acceptable?
>>
>
>> No, I am not implying that. You must have missed my statement that my
>> current setup "shifts great". It is 3 sentences before the section you
>> quoted...
>
>
> It seemed to me that you were implying that if there was even an
> eensy-weensy bit of degradation it would become unacceptable to you.
>
> If that is the case, your present level of performance is, in fact,
> "just barely acceptable" to you.
That's a creative interpretation. Of course, the most obvious meaning is
that I think it shifts great ("shifts great" etc) and I want to keep it
great ("Just as well [not almost as well]"), not that a slight
degradation in performance would make it "barely acceptable" to me.
Below 'great' most of us would recognize a continuum.
e.g. 'really good', 'pretty good', 'O.K', 'barely acceptable', 'it sucks'.
Your hypothetical jump from "great" to "just barely acceptable" is a low
probability explanation to say the least.
I believe Occam's Razor applies here.
>
>> My concern was not about the quality of your cassette, but the fact
>> that it exceeds the max sprocket capacity of my derailleur by 3 teeth.
>
>
> See: http://sheldonbrown.com/gloss_ca-m.html#capacity for the skinny on
> this.
>
> I've sold lots of these for use with standard "road double" canksets and
> Shimano short-cage rear derailers. They work fine, but the chain may
> droop if you accidentally shift into the small-small cross chain gears.
>
> If memory serves, you have a closer than usual setup in front, so even
> this shouldn't be an issue.
>
> If you'd care to buy one and try it out, you may return it if it doesn't
> work for you.
Again, thanks. I just got back from a training ride in heart rate Zone 2
(as defined in Friel's training books) and had to drop my cadence to 50
to stay in the zone on a couple of the climbs. I'm supposed to be
spinning in November. Kind of early for force workouts...
Sheldon Brown
myself, sorry.
Scott asked:
>>
>>>>> Will Sheldon's 13-30 shift *just as well* (not almost as well) with
>>>>> my setup? I have googled several responses that say it will work,
>>>>> but I only want to do it if there will be no degradation of
>>>>> shifting performance.
>>>>> Assume I am able to avoid cross chain combinations like 30 rear, 48
>>>>> front.
>> I responded:
>>
>>>> "Just as well (not almost as well)?" Are you implying that stock
>>>> Ultegra shifting is just barely acceptable?
S:
>>> No, I am not implying that. You must have missed my statement that my
>>> current setup "shifts great". It is 3 sentences before the section
>>> you quoted...
S:
>> It seemed to me that you were implying that if there was even an
>> eensy-weensy bit of degradation it would become unacceptable to you.
>>
>> If that is the case, your present level of performance is, in fact,
>> "just barely acceptable" to you.
S:
> That's a creative interpretation. Of course, the most obvious meaning is
> that I think it shifts great ("shifts great" etc) and I want to keep it
> great ("Just as well [not almost as well]"), not that a slight
> degradation in performance would make it "barely acceptable" to me.
> Below 'great' most of us would recognize a continuum.
> e.g. 'really good', 'pretty good', 'O.K', 'barely acceptable', 'it sucks'.
> Your hypothetical jump from "great" to "just barely acceptable" is a low
> probability explanation to say the least.
> I believe Occam's Razor applies here.
Hey, don't talk about razors to me! I haven't used one since 1968!
If "great" is the level you insist upon, then "near-great" is, in fact
"unacceptable" to you.
Anyway, it seems to me more important to get the gear range that suits
your situation than to worry about finicky insignificant differences in
shifting "performance."
I don't actually have this combination on any of my own bikes, which is
why I don't like to make any inflated claims for it. The closest I've
got is the 12-13-14-15-17-19-21-23-28 on my Hetchins, based on a 12-23
with the 16 pulled out. The 5 tooth jump at the bottom is noticeably
different from the others, but not to the extent that it bothers me in
the least.
Sheldon "Custom Gearing" Brown
+-------------------------------------------------------+
| Whether you think that you can, or that you can't, |
| you are usually right." |
| -- Henry Ford |
+-------------------------------------------------------+
David Damerell
>That's a creative interpretation. Of course, the most obvious meaning is
>that I think it shifts great ("shifts great" etc) and I want to keep it
>great ("Just as well [not almost as well]"), not that a slight
>degradation in performance would make it "barely acceptable" to me.
Er, no. These are your words;
>>>>but I only want to do it if there will be no degradation of shifting
>>>>performance.
If you only want to do it with no degradation, then you do not want to do
it if there is any degradation.
Therefore, even a slight degradation is unacceptable to you.
Therefore, the current state is barely acceptable, since even a slight
degradation would render it unacceptable.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Steve Palincsar
> I don't actually have this combination on any of my own bikes, which is
> why I don't like to make any inflated claims for it.
Well, I have it on two of mine, and I will be happy to make all kinds of
inflated claims for it on your behalf! It's bloody wonderful!
scott
I can relate to Sheldon's comment about flogging a dead horse and
really, I was going to drop it, but now that the peanut gallery is here
I can no longer resist.
I didn't say I wanted "almost as good" or an "eensy-weensy bit of
degradation" or "pretty darn good" or some other variation like that
because of the subjective nature of these statements. I gave a baseline
setup, gave it a (very positive I think most would agree) rating and
asked if the change would equal this level of performance. Equal is
something that can be communicated clearly. It is or it isn't, period.
After that, all bets are off.
Paul's "pretty darned good" may make your teeth grit every time you hit
the 30 tooth. Sheldon's "noticeably different from the others, but not
to the extent that it bothers me in the least" when he hits that 5 tooth
(!) jump from 23 to 28 may make you want to take up single speeding.
Below my "great" is still "very good" etc. I think that would be a fair
assumption for most humans. The assumption that I would have a
performance continuum consisting of "great" to "unacceptable" with
nothing in between is an unlikely one, to put it mildly.
To paraphrase Occam's Razor: "One should not make more assumptions than
the minimum needed."
That's a heck of an assumption and makes his (and apparently your)
interpretation exceedingly unlikely.
Java Man
> Below my "great" is still "very good" etc. I think that would be a fair
> assumption for most humans. The assumption that I would have a
> performance continuum consisting of "great" to "unacceptable" with
> nothing in between is an unlikely one, to put it mildly.
>
If it's great, you'll take one. If it's merely "very good", it won't
meet your high standards, and it's a "no-go". (I'm not taking issue
with that--when it's your money, you're entitled to make your own
choice.)
Rick
David Damerell
>Below my "great" is still "very good" etc. I think that would be a fair
>assumption for most humans. The assumption that I would have a
>performance continuum consisting of "great" to "unacceptable" with
>nothing in between is an unlikely one, to put it mildly.
It is not at all unlikely when you have said that you would not want
anything below "great". I.e., you would not accept anything below "great".
I.e., anything below "great" is unacceptable. Hence, "great" must also be
barely acceptable, because any degradation would render it unacceptable.
This is what "unacceptable" means, y'know.
bfd
concerned about Sheldon's excellent century cassettes not meeting your
standards, why not spend a few dollars more and upgrade your bike to a
triple crank. With a standard 52x42x30 (or whatever chainring combo
you choose), you can use any standard shimano cassette
(12x21/23/25/27). Yes, it will cost more to upgrade to triple, (crank,
bb, sti shifter, ft & rear ders) but then you won't have to cry
because Sheldon's cassettes don't meet you "standards".....
dvt
> >Below my "great" is still "very good" etc. I think that would be a
fair
> >assumption for most humans. The assumption that I would have a
> >performance continuum consisting of "great" to "unacceptable" with
> >nothing in between is an unlikely one, to put it mildly.
David Damerell wrote...
> It is not at all unlikely when you have said that you would not want
> anything below "great". I.e., you would not accept anything below
"great".
> I.e., anything below "great" is unacceptable. Hence, "great" must also
be
> barely acceptable, because any degradation would render it
unacceptable.
>
> This is what "unacceptable" means, y'know.
At least one dictionary says this: Unacceptable \Un`ac*cept"a*ble\, a.
Not acceptable; not pleasing; not welcome; unpleasant; disagreeable;
displeasing; offensive. -- {Un`ac*cept"a*ble*ness}, n. --
{Un`ac*cept"a*bly}, adv.
In accordance with this definition, unacceptable performance is worth
nothing (or less :). On the other hand, if the new component causes
*any* degradation of performance, it might still be "very good" or
"almost great," and the OP may equate that with "not worth my money."
What a horrible semantic discussion. I see Sheldon's point, but I don't
agree. And I'm just fine with that. We all have different
interpretations of words and phrases.
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
Java Man
> scott <sma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >Below my "great" is still "very good" etc. I think that would be a
> fair
> > >assumption for most humans. The assumption that I would have a
> > >performance continuum consisting of "great" to "unacceptable" with
> > >nothing in between is an unlikely one, to put it mildly.
>
> David Damerell wrote...
> > It is not at all unlikely when you have said that you would not want
> > anything below "great". I.e., you would not accept anything below
> "great".
> > I.e., anything below "great" is unacceptable. Hence, "great" must also
> be
> > barely acceptable, because any degradation would render it
> unacceptable.
> >
> > This is what "unacceptable" means, y'know.
>
> At least one dictionary says this: Unacceptable \Un`ac*cept"a*ble\, a.
> Not acceptable; not pleasing; not welcome; unpleasant; disagreeable;
> displeasing; offensive. -- {Un`ac*cept"a*ble*ness}, n. --
> {Un`ac*cept"a*bly}, adv.
>
> In accordance with this definition, unacceptable performance is worth
> nothing (or less :). On the other hand, if the new component causes
> *any* degradation of performance, it might still be "very good" or
> "almost great," and the OP may equate that with "not worth my money."
>
> What a horrible semantic discussion.
It's only horrible because people keep trying to second guess the
original poster's criterion.
If even the slightest degradation in performance is unacceptable to the
buyer, that's his choice. If he chooses a particular standard of
performance, and would rather live without the cassette rather than
suffer even a miniscule degradation in performance, that's OK. He
pays--he chooses--he lives with the consequences.
Personal responsiblity--perfect!
Rick
Paul Kopit
perfect/great/etc.
I run a 13/30. The 13 cog, I bought was perfect for the 14 that was
on the 12/27 cassette. I use a 30 from a 7sp HG cassette. I filed
down the alignment tab and got the ramp about where it should be but
found that to be unnecessary. I used a 30 on another cassette from a
pre HG cassette and it works too. I used a 32 on the tandem cassette
w/o problem in the shift.
The quality of the shifting is the same as the 12/27 I started with I
work the lever and the click/shift happens. I'm sure that Sheldon's
cassette works just as well. Coincidently, the chain length was the
same for a 53/27 and 53/30.
dianne_1234
definition unacceptable.
scott <sma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3DD1C09D...@hotmail.com>...